Why do we believe in conspiracy theories? Intellectual Character?

The main difference between CT'ers and everyone else is basically CT'ers really aren't happy with life and/or have not filled their lives with a
myriad of daily distractions like family, girlfriends,fulfilling job ect...

They fill that time with trying to figure out why life sucks and they glom onto subjects that interest them. From there, conspiracies start showing
up. Some are real, some aren't...

I have to add, I'm quite surprised after going through the comments, as there's a lot of well worded opinions on there that imo put the author to
shame

I can only hope we will see more of that in the future, rather than an internet of funz that only gets joy out of mockery as I'm used to from past
experiences.

The more educated opinions can pile up under a rag "article" such as this one, the better. I can't see any reason for this article other than to
stigmatise critical thinkers, through stereotyping them all under one silly fictitious character

The use of a fictional character, one that has been judged and found guilty before the dissertation even begins, shows not only a lack of critical
thinking skill - it shows an inability, or at the very least a reluctance, to do any actual research.

I agree, only I call it laziness.

I also new a man once who said something to me that I thought was
very wise. He said;

" If the river is making noise? Then it's because something is in it."

Perhaps he put a spell on me with that. Causing me to see thru the lies.
That must be it? I'm bewitched! The blue pill is a placebo ! Ahhhhhh! hahahahahah?

I'm 99.99% convinced there are conspiracies in every layer of society, in every research subject, everywhere money is to be made,... Even us regulars
partake in conspiracies in the broadest sense of the word. But that doesn't mean the world is run BY conspiracies or conspirators, and perhaps that's
where a lot of people miss the ball, and rather than mock them as "conspiratards" maybe we should help them acquire a more complete view of
things?

Well, I'm not mocking anyone. And I am in no way questioning the validity of any conspiracies in my post.

I think you're missing the point of my post. I find it lamentable that people like my friend go down the path that he has, I know others who are
similar. For me seeking an insight into things that may be hidden or overlooked is what this 'conspiracy' thing is all about, that means retaining a
skeptical and rational stance, and that is where many stray from the path, IMO, and become 'believers'. When you're are dealing with people who have
the mindset of a 'believer' then the actual truth takes a backseat.

The main difference between CT'ers and everyone else is basically CT'ers really aren't happy with life and/or have not filled their lives with a
myriad of daily distractions like family, girlfriends,fulfilling job ect...

They fill that time with trying to figure out why life sucks and they glom onto subjects that interest them. From there, conspiracies start showing
up. Some are real, some aren't...

I can agree to a point with you regarding some people, not because their life sucks, but because they want answers as to why things happen like they
do and want a better and more indepth view to see from different points and perspectives. is that not what a scientist does when trying to develop
theories and hypothesis ? CT's can't physically test a story, but the validity can be tested and challenged, and once the Gov story is not in par
with many other evidence, then there is something being kept behind closed doors. People with little else to do will forever chase the rabbit through
the hole with many forks, catch the rabbit, then wonder where the hole ends, then test each fork.

But many people with fulfilling lives and a family are also interested in CT's. You would not have books and movies like The DaVinci Code, MIB, any
alien movie, JFK, etc. if the populous had no interest at all in alternate or forbidden history. They ay not get entrenched in every little thing that
comes along, but there may be one or two subjects they continually look into for more information. Whether it is JFK, the Lusitania, Government
secret projects, Moon Landing, Illuminati in movies and music, etc.

Many do snot spend time arguing endlessly for a point on a message board, but rather skim relevant topics that interest them, and offer their insight
to that topic as they are experienced in it, maybe to a newbie that is confused or seeking explanations. It's like that little detective in all of
us that wants to discover the missing element, or put two pieces of data together to come to a different conclusion. It's an excitement and
curiosity that spurs knowledge in a topic many others find interesting but know nothing about because they know of CT's and relate them to crazies,
so to look farther into it might make them feel uncomfortable or embarassed and not want anyone to know that they too want to know more.

When it is blatantly obvious that our media is not reliable, propaganda is legal, propaganda of all sorts infiltrates the entire entertainment medium
in order to get the masses to enjoy similar things, listen to similar music, watch the same shows, follow styles and fashions, glorify actors, believe
in a 2 party system, pledge allegiance, feel sorry but glorify military men for choosing service, etc. It goes on and on. So the crazy people are the
ones that see a different way, want to find out for themself through their own research, rather than just hear a few clips on CNN about something and
move onto MTV to find out what those rawdy boozehounds are doing next.

It's best to not even think of a third tower. Oliver didn't know it and he was always reading about the crash

he knew so much that he only knew
the buildings couldn't have fallen from two planes, that is his only source of evidence. So what makes any wackadoodle theory hunter smarter than
Oliver? The author believes we are all the same, we believe everything we here and disregard what doesn't agree with our preconcieved belief of what
the truth is. Sounds similar to many religious people to me as well.

Someone could be devoutedly committed to Chritianity, believe the entire book, yet has never read the book, and still hold their ground as to why God
exists. Alost entirely based out of upbringing, schooling, and area of city/state/country. This is what we are told so it must be true, if your truth
does not agree with my truth than you are still wrong and I am still right. No evidence you show me will prove my God is not up there, that me
grandma is not in heaven with John lennon jamming out. That is just like Oliver, stubborn, gullible, and unable to research a subject and make
intellectual inferences from others research, because the results show a different reality he has always believed, so those results are false and
dismissed, scientists all lie if they question Jesus, dinosaurs are devil bones to test us, I am Oliver follow me, I know all truth yet have never
made my own conclusion through deductive reasoning, at truth is always a truth, blah blah blah. And yet the author only calls conspiracy theorists
bad thinkers.

Not to point a finger at religion, but it reallyis the same sort of thing, and the metaphor of Oliver could easily be replaced with religious fanatic
and still go the same route and end in the same conclusion. This author was on a misssion, could have easily been paid to criticize conspiracy
theorists, I have no proof but that is what I will believe, lol, jk. I believe nothing anymore, therefore I am always right and cannot be wrong.

I'm 99.99% convinced there are conspiracies in every layer of society, in every research subject, everywhere money is to be made,... Even us regulars
partake in conspiracies in the broadest sense of the word. But that doesn't mean the world is run BY conspiracies or conspirators, and perhaps
that's where a lot of people miss the ball, and rather than mock them as "conspiratards" maybe we should help them acquire a more complete view of
things?

Well, I'm not mocking anyone. And I am in no way questioning the validity of any conspiracies in my post.

I think you're missing the point of my post. I find it lamentable that people like my friend go down the path that he has, I know others who are
similar. For me seeking an insight into things that may be hidden or overlooked is what this 'conspiracy' thing is all about, that means retaining a
skeptical and rational stance, and that is where many stray from the path, IMO, and become 'believers'. When you're are dealing with people who
have the mindset of a 'believer' then the actual truth takes a backseat.

What is the turning point for one to turn from seeking insight into a believer? Believing in the contrary to what is streamlined to us as truth. IMHO
anyone could be swayed to believe in one thing or the other. Either through direct teaching through book or lecture, by a persuassive and
knowledgeable person, that goes into great depth on a subject you are unfamiliar with though curious about. You get overload of info so you research
everything that was of great interest to you and now you are repeating the authors research to get to the conclusion he did, spent hours and hours
knowing his viewpoint, and now sees how he got there. You spend so much time on it that you know all areas of the theory, all areas that prove the
conspiracy or at least prove the official story is not true, so if the official story is false then your story must be the most right.

Another and similar way to make someone believe nearly anything is by passivley constantly telling them it is true, offer little reason for them to
have to research it, but just have this truth as a set in stone fact, and everyone in media, news, friends, and family act as if it is all fact with
no holes. One would not want to be the only one to say the fact is not fact, unless they had good reason to, so they forever believe the fact as a
truth because it just is. This is how schools teach children as to what is fact, and leave out a lot of information that should be taught as well,
its a way to alter society by changing history or deleting it andthe similar.

Does anyone come to their own conclusion without outside resources persuaying them on what is truth or fiction? Do we really need Google to tell us
what is truth? How many aspects of humanity have always been a truth, a truth that noone can prove wrong because it just is and always was? Things
change, information is revealed, scientist does some damn science, check their numbers, retest on and on to answer a question that is testable. Many
conspiracies are not testable, it is inferring truth from fact in data and anothers words.

The intellectual establishment seem to be at great pains to explain conspiracy theory as a legitimate psychological reaction to a complicated world we
simple people cannot understand. Therefore we create elaborate 'a -b -c' stories that easily explain why things are the way they are. After all, why
would I want to learn about the intricacies of economics or politics when I could just blame the Illuminati?

What's funny is that I see it the other way round, too.

Members of the intellectual establishment, having worked liked dogs to get their precious PhD's, arrive at the plateau of human knowledge expecting
the world to FINALLY make sense. All that money they have spent on education. All of those hours with their heads in books. The skipped meals, the
missed parties, the broken relationships and the ass kissing of superiors. Now is the time it pays off. Only it doesn't. They get to the top only to
discover that nobody has a fecking clue what is going on. Nobody.

So when some little upstart, average Joe with a grueling 9-5 and a minor drink problem comes along with a theory that makes more sense than anything
they could ever have dreamed of they make it their mission to belittle and destroy.

Conspiracy theory is not a simpleton's attempt at understanding the world, at least not completely.

The article linked, however, is an intellectuals attempt at justifying their own existence.

Members of the intellectual establishment, having worked liked dogs to get their precious PhD's, arrive at the plateau of human knowledge expecting
the world to FINALLY make sense. All that money they have spent on education. All of those hours with their heads in books. The skipped meals, the
missed parties, the broken relationships and the ass kissing of superiors. Now is the time it pays off. Only it doesn't. They get to the top only to
discover that nobody has a fecking clue what is going on. Nobody.

Right.

So this is your take on academic pursuits?

Have you got a PhD?

Was this your experience? If so, then my condolences for having such a miserable time.

Or is this you?

So when some little upstart, average Joe with a grueling 9-5 and a minor drink problem comes along with a theory that makes more sense than
anything they could ever have dreamed of they make it their mission to belittle and destroy.

What is the turning point for one to turn from seeking insight into a believer?

A 'believer' is a person who has ceased in their search for the truth, yes they may tell you, me and even themselves that they are searching for the
truth, but in reality they are only interested in the confirmation of their own beliefs. And thus any information that does not support their beliefs
is ignored, dismissed or rejected as lies. I don't think there is an actual "turning point" to be honest, it's really how perceptive an individual is
to begin with. The question is whether they were really searching for the truth in the first place.

The semantics regarding "conspiracy theories" seems to bog a lot of people down. Call them what you will, but typically these theories are generally
controversial to some degree, and are usually contested or dismissed by the majority, hence the marginalisation and the label. A lot of these theories
can be assessed by evaluating all the arguments for and against their validity, and an individual, if they are impartial, can arrive at their own
conclusion. If they are not impartial or un-biased then their own convictions will push them down a certain path.

To answer your post, in my opinion it is not so much what is to be considered the "truth" that is important, it is the state of the mind of the
observer that is paramount. A healthy and intelligent mind will draw conclusions based upon all the available information, however that individual
will also understand that their own conclusions may be incomplete or wrong, of course this is just my opinion.

originally posted by: Strawberry88
We believe in conspiracies because we are ALL capable of contriving them.

Knowing that little fact, it seems impossible NOT to consider that people with more power or resources than us, could well come up with schemes to
advance their own agendas.

Many of us would.

To refuse all conspiracies is a sign of complete indoctrination. There are and always have been greedy and evil people. Only a fool would believe that
those days are over, no more evidence required at this point.

I suppose a big portion of it is due to simple curiosity. Many people do not share the same desire for knowledge, therefore opinions inevitably differ
on the validity of some of the theories where evidence is sparse or cloudy.

I suppose a big portion of it is due to simple curiosity. Many people do not share the same desire for knowledge, therefore opinions inevitably differ
on the validity of some of the theories where evidence is sparse or cloudy.

I mean, heh c'mon look at Stewie. He has a time machine!

I agree that many don't share the desire for knowledge, especially a broad knowledge. But I do believe everyone has an interest in something
(fashion, nutrition, biology, etc) and will want to learn as much about that sbject over their lifetime because new information is always happening in
every area. IMHO Philosophy is entirely opinion, as no theory can truly be tested, only observed and answered with each bias towards the question
itself.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.